Omnibrella
Omnibrella is a multi-tool umbrella that is designed to give a user more freedom when it rains.
I participated in a course named Innovative Product Design via Digital Manufacturing during my Masters at Cornell.
The problem statement given to the group was "to redesign the family experience to be so game-changing that it [would] set a new standard for an industry" My group, Gorges Design, made progress through uses of Design Thinking and Systems Engineering methods, numerous Prototyping and Simulations, and Business tools. |
Omnibrella Overview
Omnibrella Details
Design Thinking Process
Empathy Phase
Design Thinking process was conducted throughout the whole project. As the first step of the Design Thinking process, Empathy phase was the foundation of a human-centered design process; by deeply understanding the target audience, the group could design a better product for them. The three methods of Empathy Fieldwork were Immersion, Observation, and Engagement. |
Interpreting and understanding user's needs from the conversation was the main challenge of the Empathy Fieldwork. Communicating closely with the end user and being able to hear the feedback from user's own mouth was a critical foundation in terms of the whole product design process.
It was important for the group to interact with multiple families to expand the spectrum of needs. Students also drove to a park, a grocery shop, and the downtown commons area to engage with families in random environment. Recognizing extreme users in different environments expanded the spectrum in lessons learned from Empathy Fieldwork. |
Key Insights from Empathy Phase:
|
Define Phase
Subjective views and stories from families needed to be translated to engineering metrics and terms. The main point of transition was to connect ideas from different families to discover certain patterns of user's needs, which would result in a development of a product at a later phase. Define 1 covered elements based on specific instances, while Define 2 broke the borderline of events and created universal attributes of relative importance. |
Since information was quantitatively abundant, members initiated the Define 1 process by selecting memorable instances from each family along with certain point of view (POV) from one of the family member. Elements of what families said, felt, and acted in such instances were noted down on giant post-it boards with pictures to represent the scene right away. Connections between elements were color coded to show tension, contradiction, consistency, synergy, and oddness. Needs, insights, and surprises were derived by the elements and their connections. The whole team's participation was crucial. The procedure and development went beyond chronological placement; it was about catching the atmosphere and tiny details that could define the family from the scene. |
Main purpose of Define 2 phase was to frame specific end-users for the group to design the product. Well accomplished product would improve the lifestyle by satisfying the user's desire. All of the information from Define 1 was treated equally and was grouped by similarity of the content. The team partitioned the board into eight areas for grouping all the needs, insights, and surprises post-it notes under them. Then, as done in the same manner as previous Define 1 phase with color-coded lines, the group identified tensions, contradictions, consistencies, synergies, and oddness across different categories and its subcategories. |
Ideate Phase
During the Ideate phase, the group explored numerous product concepts to redesign the family experience based on the cornerstones generated from Define phase. Multiple brainstorming sessions were conducted with each sessions including 45 minutes of generating ideas and 15 minutes of sorting and evaluating ideas. Three brainstorming sessions treated general product ideas and fourth session used best selections from previous sessions. Everyone was reminded about brainstorming rules that professor recommended.
|
Next, the team voted groups of concepts based on the feasibility and the desirability. Feasibility represented level of product fabrication. Higher feasibility meant easier the fabrication based on current technology and knowledge of members. Desirability, denoted the level of user's appeal. Higher desirability referred to higher demand of users. Each members were granted with four votes of feasibility and four votes of desirability. A single brainstorm session was finished after the team ranked concept groups based on the counts of two types of votes.
Each brainstorming session was held a day or two later. Taking a break allowed members to digest their concepts, to attend the next session with a fresh mind, or perhaps to come up with brand new ideas in the next round. The team gathered numerous great ideas as product concepts, which they would pursue for the rest of the class after four brainstorming sessions.
Each brainstorming session was held a day or two later. Taking a break allowed members to digest their concepts, to attend the next session with a fresh mind, or perhaps to come up with brand new ideas in the next round. The team gathered numerous great ideas as product concepts, which they would pursue for the rest of the class after four brainstorming sessions.
In order to quantify the design concept, the team utilized the Decision Analysis Diagram, which was a scatter plot with desirability on the x-axis and feasibility on the y-axis. The diagram would visualize a comparison of the overall tendency between multiple product concepts while including a dotted line to indicate a balance between feasibility and desirability. The idea of LED umbrella was brought up in the third round, which came from a random instance when one of the members looked outside the window and commented on a rainy day. Among many concepts, members discussed with logical reasoning and consolidated on the LED/Balancing Cup umbrella. |
Since the product concept was chosen, the team continued Ideate phase by discussing key features and requirements of the Multi-tool umbrella. Like another brainstorming session, the team took out a blank post-it board and jotted down on post-it notes of what other elements could be dded to the umbrella. The team also scheduled a time with Cornell's architecture major student, who had in-depth experience with prototyping and sketching abstract ideas into physical concepts. The members believed that the architecture student could challenge the product concept and bring new ideas from a non-engineering and third-person perspective.
Prototype Phase
Multiple phases of Design Thinking solidified the product concepts. In order to validate their solution, members felt the need to embody the concept to present the solution to the end-users. The Prototype phase would allow the team to not only learn more about their audience by immersing, but also help members and end-users recognizing the product and its use by physically exploiting. Additionally, prototyping would provide the team good insights about the feasibility of the product within the timeline of the course. |
The rapid prototyping afforded the team to develop a prototype that could best illustrate the concept to the potential users. users had less understanding to visualize the product because they did not engage in Design Thinking process like the members had. The key point of the rapid prototyping was to simplify the product as much as possible for user's easier comprehension, which would yield greater feedback. Since the budget and the time were limited, members went to the lab storage to find any basic and readily available art supplies to build the prototype. Members picked sets of markers, masking tapes, and wire strings from the lab storage.
The team produced a minute-long video to introduce Omnibrella by delivering problems and suggesting solutions. The video resembled a TV or radio commercial for the audience to comfortably enjoy and understand the uses. The film started by portraying the issue, when the mother was impeded to hold on to the child because she was carrying many business materials in her hand. Another obstacle continued on the next scene, when a car crashed to a person walking in the dark night. After addressing the problem in the first quarter, the video announced Omnibrella as a solution. Followed by the quick overview of the sketch, the video presented the same actors, but this time with Omnibrella. Using the Omnibrella would solve the difficulties that users faced previously. The skit reflected on the the product and previously accomplished progresses as another part of the Design Thinking process, by performing roles as users, by filming the scene, and by reviewing the setting and story during the editing session. Members achieved better understanding of the benefit of the system and the gaps that would require more attention.
|
|
While the prototype was not a fully functioning model, the team coveted an initial list of capabilities, attributes, requirements, and components for the Omnibrella to share with potential users.
|
The main purpose of the prototype was to validate if features on Omnibrella were to encourage interactions and communications with others, especially between parent and the child, by lowering the user's burden. The rapid prototyping section was merely the beginning of numerous iterations that were to come during the Test and Iteration phase, but the initial prototype would serve as the basic framework for the rest of the Omnibrella design. After receiving user's feedback, the team would revisit the Prototype phase several times to make necessary design changes. More details of Omnibrella, such as CAD models and physical prototype evolution can be checked in the Prototyping & Simulation Section.
The team iterated the prototype numerous times to seek for ultimate design of Omnibrella, the multi-tool umbrella. Between the iterations, members received and assessed feedback, which addressed underlying needs of the users. Some of the feedback penetrated flaws behind the product and gaps that needed further explanation. The defiant questions sparked interesting suggestions and wider point of views that were not recognized by the members.
Members prepared themselves by printing a bundle of the testing matrix beforehand. Then, the team physically visited the testing site with the prototype(s). Sometimes members attended showcase events, such as Ithaca Sciencenter. The Gate reviews were conducted as a presentation in classrooms in front of professors with Industrial advisers on the video conference call. Other times, the team interacted with random students in the university campus plaza. Members recorded the conversation as well as observed each individual to the testing matrix.
During the fairs, the team employed systemic structures in order to maximize the inputs from family in order to maximize the inputs from family in limited time. Specific roles were distributed to each members based on their personality and including essential product-related questions during the conversations, while not intimidating the families. In addition, Jeff even considered the walking path that families would take when they come to the station. The conversation usually took place in pair of members. One student actively engaging with the family members and the other student taking notes to the testing matrix and pictures to capture the moment. Prior to the event, members had a meeting to prepare themselves for familiarizing with the testing matrix framework and for avoiding awkward silence by generating sets of questions they could ask to the families.
During the fairs, the team employed systemic structures in order to maximize the inputs from family in order to maximize the inputs from family in limited time. Specific roles were distributed to each members based on their personality and including essential product-related questions during the conversations, while not intimidating the families. In addition, Jeff even considered the walking path that families would take when they come to the station. The conversation usually took place in pair of members. One student actively engaging with the family members and the other student taking notes to the testing matrix and pictures to capture the moment. Prior to the event, members had a meeting to prepare themselves for familiarizing with the testing matrix framework and for avoiding awkward silence by generating sets of questions they could ask to the families.
Testing matrix was formatted in a quad grid, including four questions in each corner: what worked, what could be improved, what questions the user had, and what new ideas surfaced during the testing . The unpacking from testing matrices was the same as in Define phase. Data were extracted and quantified via making connections, identifying insights, and surprises, and grouping of such notes.
The team iterated the prototype design and details several times until the semester was over. Iteration information can be found in Systems Engineering Section and Prototyping & Simulation Section. |